News Forced Sterilization of the Handicapped

[Mike Cash]

障害者の強制不妊手術：審査経緯明らかに　検診録など発見 - 毎日新聞

Over 16,000 forced sterilizations (~70% on women) and about 59,000 forced abortions carried out on the handicapped in Japan between 1948 and 1996.

I had never heard of this happening in Japan.

 

[OoTmaster]

I had never heard of that before either. That's truly horrifying.

 

[diligentcircle]

I'm quite surprised to hear that eugenics was practiced that recently. I thought for sure it died half a century before then.

 

[OoTmaster]

You could still argue that in the United States voluntary eugenics is still practiced. Planned parenthood and other abortion clinics are routinely placed in low income and minority areas more prominently than white or higher income areas.

 

[diligentcircle]

Planned Parenthood offers medical services to poor people, so it wouldn't make sense to put Planned Parenthood clinics in areas that don't have a lot of poor people. The whole idea of Planned Parenthood being a part of a conspiracy to reduce populations is just that: a conspiracy theory. It doesn't have any credibility. Without the conspiracy theory, it's nothing like eugenics because it doesn't control who passes on genes.

 

[OoTmaster]

That's why I said voluntary. Also I didn't not state there was intent in any of this. I was simply trying to show that the idea of eugenics is still alive and well.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

Forced sterilization occurred in the USA up to the late 1970s on a large scale (state run programs, etc.), and in the prison populations of California coerced sterilizations have occurred as late as 2010. Albeit on a much smaller scale but, frankly, anyone sterilized through coercive or forced means is an affront to human dignity, regardless of scale.

 

[OoTmaster]

Thanks WonkoTheSane that was more my point is that it has continued into present day.

 

[nice gaijin]

relevant to the idea of voluntary but coerced sterilizations: This woman pays drug users not to have kids – VICE News

The idea of voluntary sterilization as a tool of suppressing specific populations is a whole topic unto itself though... back on the subject of the original article and what it reveals, which is much closer to the idea of eugenics as a systemic way of suppressing certain characteristics deemed "undesirable."

In a related note, I'd ask if anyone has an opinion on how far apart the ideas are between forcing sterilization on someone considered handicapped, aborting a fetus once a genetic abnormality is recognized, and using pre-natal screening to artificially select for specific traits? And how are these methods much different from animal husbandry or selective breeding in plants and animals for pets and agricultural purposes. Is it a spectrum on which there is a clear demarcation between what you'd consider acceptable and where you'd draw the line?

Now, what do you consider to be an "undesirable" trait? Is it if the pregnancy is guaranteed to have complications that would threaten the mother's life? Is it a debilitating genetic disease that will cause them immense suffering, greatly reduce their viability as a fetus or shorten their life? Is it a mental or physical retardation that would render them incapable of caring for themselves (and thus considered a burden on society)? Is it a compromised sense, such as deafness or blindness? Is it a chemical dependency caused by their mother's addiction to drugs? Is it having the wrong colored skin, hair, or eyes? Is it having the wrong gender? At what point did this list start making you uncomfortable?

As an aside, I'm reminded of a project I worked on as a college student, started by some special-ed teachers to help teach important concepts like "good touch, bad touch," and how to report improper behavior to a trusted adult. They came to our class with some shocking statistics, that children with developmental disabilities were nearly 5 times more likely to be abused, and almost 6 and a half times more likely to be sexually abused than their peers. (edit: I wasn't sure if the project was still active, but at least they still have a web presence at Safe Life Project )

With developmental challenges, one's ability to consent (and report abuse) may be compromised, which makes me wonder, of all those abortions and sterilizations performed, how many of them covered up cases of sexual abuse...

These are dark, difficult questions to ask, but if we are to have any sort of productive, meaningful conversation, we must face our own concepts of morality and personal autonomy.

 

[OoTmaster]

Now, what do you consider to be an "undesirable" trait? Is it if the pregnancy is guaranteed to have complications that would threaten the mother's life? Is it a debilitating genetic disease that will cause them immense suffering, greatly reduce their viability as a fetus or shorten their life? Is it a mental or physical retardation that would render them incapable of caring for themselves (and thus considered a burden on society)? Is it a compromised sense, such as deafness or blindness? Is it a chemical dependency caused by their mother's addiction to drugs? Is it having the wrong colored skin, hair, or eyes? Is it having the wrong gender? At what point did this list start making you uncomfortable?

This is where targeted voluntary eugenics could come in. Simply place services in areas that have the "undesirable" traits and let the local populace know of your services. Whether this is done because of "undesirable" traits or simply because those services are used more in areas like that would be the determining factor to whether it was targeted off of the "undesirable" traits or simply for more profit. There is the 3rd option that they are placed in those areas because people in those areas are less likely to afford those services.

 

[nice gaijin]

This is where targeted voluntary eugenics could come in. Simply place services in areas that have the "undesirable" traits and let the local populace know of your services. Whether this is done because of "undesirable" traits or simply because those services are used more in areas like that would be the determining factor to whether it was targeted off of the "undesirable" traits or simply for more profit. There is the 3rd option that they are placed in those areas because people in those areas are less likely to afford those services.

I read this several times and I don't understand how this is a response to the section of my post that you quoted. Could you please clarify what you mean by this?

 

[OoTmaster]

Simply because the areas those service go could be determined by a prevalence of traits the company finds undesirable. Like I was saying earlier with them going into mostly minority and poorer areas. If the locations are targeted it could be because those traits are marked as undesirable by those that decide where these are located.